tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post3277858941645231661..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Discussion: Desires, Value, and MeaningAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-30359840832353681782007-02-25T07:18:00.000-07:002007-02-25T07:18:00.000-07:00eenaukA healthy practice that sets the brain back ...<B>eenauk</B><BR/><BR/>A healthy practice that sets the brain back in balance is something that I would call 'meditation' not 'prayer'.<BR/><BR/>Your account seems unable to handle the observation that athiests do not pray. The reason that atheists do not pray is because there is nobody listening. Atheists play chess. Why do they not pray.<BR/><BR/>Your statement that "atheists tend (unsurprisingly) to interpret religion along atheist lines" also is difficult to support.<BR/><BR/>Atheism is not a church and atheists are not raised in a commune separated from society. We learn to speak English by listening to common English speakers - the vast majority are Christian. So, there is no distinct 'atheist' way of interpreting things. We speak the same language that Christian America speaks.<BR/><BR/>That language is one that treats religoius claims as propositions having a truth value. Attempting to convince people that religious claims are not propositions dealing with truth would be convincing them of a fiction.<BR/><BR/>One can perhaps try to <I>transform</I> religion into something that does not deal with propositional truth. However, that is not true of religion today. That claim fails to explain and predict how religious people actually behave.<BR/><BR/>As for your last claim, that "religion . . . is a practical institution that gives meaning and fulfillment primarily through action and not through scientific-sounding truth," I would agree with this.<BR/><BR/>I would also hodl that "meaning through . . . scientific-sounding truth" is an absurdity. Truth is a property of beliefs. Value is a property of desires. Associating 'meaning' and 'purpose' to 'truth' is a category mistake - one of linking 'desire' properties to 'belief' states.<BR/><BR/>Action, as I wrote above, is attempting to make or keep true those propositions that are the object of one's desires. So, associating meaning and purpose to action (or intentional inaction, if this is the best way to make or keep these propositions true) does make sense.<BR/><BR/>In fact, this is what I am arguing for.<BR/><BR/>However, nobody can succeed in making or keeping a proposition true if the propositions that are the objects of their desires are propositions incapable of being made or kept true.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-14784424765740780142007-02-25T06:58:00.000-07:002007-02-25T06:58:00.000-07:00Atheist ObserverThe Meaning of MeaningI believe th...<B>Atheist Observer</B><BR/><BR/><I><B>The Meaning of Meaning</B></I><BR/><BR/>I believe that a lot of people speak about a life having 'meaning' and 'purpose', and that they consider this as having such value that without such things is no better than death.<BR/><BR/>I also think that a principle of charity requires interpreting their claims as making sense rather than nonsense - that a nonsense interpretation is one that an individual should be forced into as a last resort.<BR/><BR/>There are certainly definitions of 'meaning' that would turn the claims that people make into nonsense and absuridty. However, one then has to ask why a person would use <I>those</I> definitions. It would be like hearing somebody say, "I came in second at the race," and answering, "A second is a unit of time. Your sentence that you came in 1/60th of a minute at the race makes no sense."<BR/><BR/>An interpretation that makes sense is to be preferred to an interpretation of nonsense.<BR/><BR/>The interpretation that I give to "meaning" and "purpose" is simply a generalized application of "value" - a way of saying, "this life is important".<BR/><BR/>Of course, no life can have intrinsic value (since intrinsic value does not exist). No life could possibly have value in the sense of, "God is pleased with how I live my life," because no God exists. However, a life can still have value in the sense that anything else in the real world has value - in terms of 'being such as to fulfill the desires in question.'<BR/><BR/><I><B>Intentional Action and Desires</B></I><BR/><BR/>A "life of being . . . without trying to make any proposition true" is a life without intentional action. Such an agent will not voluntarily move.<BR/><BR/>An intentional action is an act that aimst to make or keep true the propositions that are the objects of an agent's desires - following the formula:<BR/><BR/>(beliefs + desires -> intentions -> intentional actions)<BR/><BR/>An agent who acts without seeking to make or keep any proposition true is like an object in space that changes direction or velocity of movement with no forces acting upon it.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-87665230291588822912007-02-24T22:51:00.000-07:002007-02-24T22:51:00.000-07:00i must agree with the atheist observer: i think yo...i must agree with the atheist observer: i think you are taking an overly epistemological approach to religious belief/meaning. Why can we not view, say, prayer as a healthy practice that sets the brain back into balance? The praying father need not actually hold the proposition that is child will be better after he prays (many religious people i know wouldn't) but holds the proposition that it is somehow good for all concerned if he does sit quietly and unburden himself. In this sense prayer is just like playing chess: it's not a propositional attitude, but a good habit, just like doing your pushups every morning, practicing your piano or smiling at yourself in the mirror.<BR/><BR/>atheists tend (unsurprizingly) to interpret religion along atheist lines, thinking its all about knowledge. religious propositions are indeed usually false, but that doesnt mean they aren't useful.<BR/><BR/>However, saying (rightly) that religious propositions are most all scientifically false, will indeed upset many a religious person and perhaps throw them into despair. But those are religious people who do not understand their own use of religion and have swallowed the enlightenment view that religion is an epistemological endeavour. Meaning will be restored to such people not by getting them used to atheism, but rather by showing them that religion doesn't deal in propositional truth but is a practical institution that gives meaning and fulfillment primarily through action and not through scientific-sounding truths.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-38560285840485374622007-02-24T13:05:00.000-07:002007-02-24T13:05:00.000-07:00Alonzo,What do you think of the proposition that t...Alonzo,<BR/>What do you think of the proposition that the concept of meaningful, as applied to human life, is inappropriate?<BR/><BR/>You seem to feel that one must be fulfilling a realistic desire for one's life to be meaningful. Why must one be fulfilling any desire for life to be meaningful? Is a life of being and experiencing the universe without trying to make any propositions true less meaningful than trying to play chess better than everyone else?<BR/><BR/>Is the existence of a rock meaningful, or the life of a virus meaningful? Why should humans be any different?<BR/><BR/>Couldn't the idea of a "meaning" for life be just as incorrect as the idea that a god exists?<BR/><BR/>If god is an inappropriate projection of a human father into a fatherless universe, could meaningful life not also be an inappropriate projection of our "what does this mean to the continued life of me and my species?" to life itself, where the question makes no sense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com